ISLAMABAD - The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Wednesday reserved its verdict in the Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI) petition challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP)’s fact finding report in prohibited funding case. A larger-bench of the IHC comprising Chief Justice of IHC Justice Aamer Farooq, Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb and Justice Baber Sattar conducted hearing of the case filed by the PTI challenging the ECP’s decision and seeking to stop FIA’s action. During the hearing, the IHC Chief Justice remarked that the ECP’s decision in the prohibited funding case against the PTI was an ‘observation’ and that if the PTI proved that the funds were not prohibited, the decision will have to be changed. Barrister Anwar Mansoor on behalf of the PTI appeared before the court and in his arguments, he said that the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) had begun its action in the context of the ECP’s decision. Justice Aamer said that the commission’s decision was sometimes being called an order, sometimes a report, and sometimes an opinion. He maintained that he viewed it as a fact-finding report. The PTI lawyer maintained that the ECP had no authority to give such a declaration. The IHC CJ said that the electoral body had not given any declaration that stated Imran Khan is not honest and trustworthy. He added that the commission had only made one conclusion. At this, Mansoor stated that the ECP had in fact given its declaration and reiterated that it did not have the authority to do so. He continued that the ECP had used the word “hold” and Justice Aurangzeb questioned that how the commission could do that without showing its show-cause notice to the PTI. Justice Aamer inquired that whether the former ruling party was worried about disqualification at the hands of the ECP. In response to it, the lawyer said that the ECP had declared PTI chief Imran Khan’s declaration of funding to be wrong. He added that the ECP had dubbed PTI a “foreignaided party” which it did not have the authority to do. The IHC CJ said that the ECP had not given any declarations in its report, while Justice Miangul said that the ECP should have reached a conclusion before issuing the show-cause notice. The lawyer further said that Imran Khan was not made a party in the case, rather the PTI as a whole was made a party. He said that the ECP did not issue a notice to Imran Khan. Later, the lawyer of the ECP argued that the commission’s verdict would be called a decision because a show-cause notice was issued after that. The court said that the ECP had shown that it would forfeit the funds to the government if the case was proven. The ECP advocate replied that the funds could only be confiscated as a final result. The court inquired why the ECP referred the matter to the federal government to which the lawyer stated that the commission was a regulator and told the government the information they had discovered. Justice Aurangzeb inquired that how the ECP had the authority to refer the matter to the federal government. At this, the ECP lawyer said that the commission received information and forwarded it to the government. He added that further action is yet to be taken against the petitioner. Justice Farooq said that the court was not there to solve political problems but to observe the law after the PTI counsel alleged that the proceedings before the ECP were not “fair”